Hackney council declare their goal in the very first paragraph, which is "to make cycling a normal, safe and attractive choice for travel and recreation for our residents and addressing barriers that prevent other residents from taking up cycling."

They make it clear that they want Hackney to be a place where anyone can cycle:

A place where it is second nature for everyone, no matter what their age, background or ethnicity to cycle already exists of course but with cycling still being a very small minority of trips within Hackney it's going to take an awful lot of change to Hackneys roads to enable us to get anywhere even close to the kind of levels of cycling you see in the Netherlands within the next ten years.

The objectives of the cycling plan include that "there will be high levels of cycling amongst residents from all backgrounds and communities in Hackney" and they hope that "the causes of real and perceived road danger for cyclists will have been tackled through improvements to the physical environment"

We'll skip over the introduction along with Policy background and wider influences and onto current cycling trends in Hackney where the council "outlines some of the more successful measures that have worked to increase levels and to identify some of the barriers the prevent others from regular cycling." It also reports that Hackney is "the borough [in London] with the highest cycling mode share for all trips with a figure of approximately 6%"

On existing cycling conditions in Hackney the council state that in recent years they have "taken a slightly different approach to cycling provision than the traditional approach of providing on-road cycle lanes focusing instead on improving the permeability and accessibility of the whole road network for cyclists, encouraging all users to share the road and improving safety by reducing traffic speed" and that "many of the measures previously undertaken in Hackney are now regarded as best practice and promoted elsewhere across London". Which is worrying if other boroughs of London wanting to provide for cyclists are looking to Hackney as best practice, an area which still has a fairly low cycling mode share of just 6%. They should instead be looking at other countries who have achieved much, much higher levels of cycling using the "traditional approach" of providing actual cycling provision that Hackney has avoided in recent years.

One thing the council can be praised for is its cycle permeability where strategic road closures have been placed on some of the more minor and residential streets, which have no doubt helped push the cycling levels up. Many of these, such as in De Beauvoir Town were installed decades ago so today's Labour council can't really take credit for that. The council have created some recently and they point out that they have "done this to good effect in Goldsmiths Row and London Fields, which is one of the key cycling routes in the borough"which is true and Goldsmith's Row is one of the best streets in Hackney to cycle along but this was, and always will be, one of the most popular cycle routes in the borough due to its location.

Here is a map showing the route with motor traffic free routes in green, shared routes in blue and the main bus route in red.

Even without the filtered permeability this would still be the busiest route as it's the shortest and quickest way to get from Hackney Central to Hackney Road. Still, Goldsmiths Row is very pleasant to cycle along and the council should be applauded for their efforts in improving a key cycle route in the borough.

Barriers to cycling in London

The council recognises that despite the "obvious progress made there remains a lot to be done to normalise cycling as a default mode of transport." Indeed, the statistics tell us that getting around by bike is the default option for only a small minority of residents of London with an overall mode share of around 2.4%. Stand on any road in the capital for a short while and you'll see that, on the whole, you do not get people from all backgrounds cycling. Whilst it is not totally exclusive to young, fit men it is still rare to see pensioners or very young children cycling on any of London's, or indeed, Hackney's main roads. Again just spend a short amount of time stood on any main road in Hackney and you can understand why this is, as surely the council can as well.

"Concerns about cyclist safety figure prominently as the primary barrier as to why many people do not cycle. The recently-published Mayor's Vision for Cycling states that the fear of injury is the number one reason why Londoners do not cycle. Similarly, a DfT study of a sample of 3,155 adults living in England found that 63% of potential cyclists surveyed agreed they would find cycling on the roads stressful and that 60% said it was too dangerous to cycle on the roads"

So we've quite clearly established that the number one reason why people do not cycle in London is due to the fear of injury whilst cycling on the roads. This is an entirely rational fear to have and most people share it, thankfully other countries have found a solution to this and that is to ensure people cycling do not have to share the road with heavy and fast moving traffic on main roads.

So how does Hackney intend to deal with this? Immediately after establishing that fear of cycling on London's roads is the main reason why people do not cycle they boast that "Hackney council has implemented free cycle awareness training course for HGV drivers" and work to "improving driver awareness through a series of advertisements on billboards, newspapers and radio" Except of course that does nothing whatsoever to conquer peoples fear of cycling on the roads. Plus all drivers have to take a test, and HGV drivers an extended test but we still have a very large amount of people being killed or seriously injured on the roads each year. People driving lorries sometimes make mistakes so how about taking that money spent on training and adverts and instead spend it on designing the roads so people do not have to share it with buses, lorries and other heavy or fast moving traffic. You know, the one and only way that mass cycling has been achieved since the rise of the motor vehicle. People talking about training and lorry driver awareness in the context of children or old people cycling are frankly not living in reality. Focusing on training and education hasn't led to safe mass cycling anywhere in the world so why persist with it? Why not just copy what does work?

Dangerous junctions is the next item listed as a barrier to cycling in London and they note that TFL is undertaking a junction review where they plan to improve six junctions located within Hackney "using Dutch-style bicycle-friendly traffic engineering technique." Thankfully TFL are finally starting to understand how to accommodate people cycling on their roads. Hackney council vow to "engage with TfL to address cyclist safety concerns at these junctions" so let us all hope this means Hackney councillors supporting the Dutch-style traffic engineering techniques, instead of blocking them for some unsafe "share the road" crossroads nonsense.

"Lack of secure cycle parking" and "incomplete cycle route and gyratories" are the other two barriers to cycling in London listed in this report.

We then move onto barriers to cycling in Hackney where I hope to be able to find out why 94% of trips in Hackney are made by other modes, an awful lot of them people sitting on buses taking over an hour to travel a few miles.

The first barrier to cycling in Hackney is a "need for improved network and junctions." Well, that is true; we need a high quality and joined up network of cycle routes and need these routes to continue to be safe as they pass through junctions "the need to provide safer cycle routes and safer crossings figures prominently in responses to all workplace and school travel surveys undertaken" say the council, followed by "there are a number of one-way streets on Hackney's road network that create obstacles for cyclists, leading to greater journey times and heightened perception of danger due to high vehicle speeds." I'm not sure why one-way streets are being mentioned here. People are scared to cycle amongst traffic, they are not scared of cycling amongst traffic travelling in one direction only! The only section of that paragraph that is true is that one-way streets "lead to greater journey times". The only positive outcome for cyclists following the conversion of the Shoreditch one way system was to make it quicker to travel from Hackney Road to the Old Street roundabout for people who already cycled from Hackney Road to the Old Street roundabout. It is still a fast, wide multi-lane road which most choose to get the bus through. Removing gyratories and one way systems offer nothing to people wanting to take up cycling unless you also add cycle provision.

"The council seeks to remove the gyratory on the A10 at Stoke Newington." Assuming the council don't install cycle tracks then it'll just be like Shoreditch is now. Or like Tottenham. Or like Brixton. A road that offers slightly quicker journey times for people already cycling but does nothing for the 94% who will continue to use other methods to travel through.

Old Street, which used to have four lanes of motor traffic going in one direction, now has two lanes of motor traffic in each direction thanks largely to the Hackney cycling campaign. A truly awful place for people cycling.

The entire area to the left used to be the road, now an over-sized pavement with no space for people cycling

"Lack of suitable bicycle storage and parking" is listed as another barrier to cycling in Hackney, which is what happens when you provide a tiny fraction of cycle parking spaces on your road as you do car parking spaces. The council have started to address this by installing bike hangers and to be fair to them I could be talking about any area in London, or indeed the rest of the UK.

Brenthouse Road, in Hackney Central. A road I used to live on and chose to illegally cycle the wrong way down each evening to get back to my flat, due to car parking on both sides of the road for the minority of residents who drove.

"In addition to secure cycle parking, the lack of other end-of-trip facilities such as shower and changing facilities has been identified as a significant barrier to workplaces and destinations in Hackney."This is not an issue in the Netherlands where people are not expected to ride fast road bikes at 20mph in the primary position and end up drenched in sweat after a 3 mile bike ride.

"Bike theft" is the next barrier to cycling in Hackney followed by "lack of cycle skills / training"

People should not have to have the necessary "road skills, fitness and confidence" just to get around the borough by bike, especially if you plan to have people cycling "no matter what their age." Cycling simply shouldn't be like that. Also if cycle training is not provided until Year 5 what about people aged under ten, are they excluded from cycling on Hackney's roads?

A Dutch child that does not have to worry about lacking road skills, fitness or confidence. If he moved to Hackney he "wouldn't need segregated cycle tracks" and could simply "develop the skills, knowledge and confidence required to cycle to school safely using the roads"

Hackney Road, one of the busiest cycle routes in Hackney, do we really expect children to cycle on roads like this in Hackney once they have had the necessary training to develop "road skills"?

"Culture and attitudes to cycling" is the next barrier to cycling in the borough. "Hackney is a place with a renowned cycling culture" apparently. Whilst we do now have a look mum no hands on Mare Street I'm not sure that counts as having a cycling culture! If the only place you see young kids cycling is in parks or along the canal towpath then I really don't think you can claim to have a cycling culture.

"In order to increase the borough's cycling levels the borough will need to target currently non-cycling residents that view cycling to be less appealing than other modes of transport." Of course if you want to increase the cycle share by any significant amount then you'll certainly have to get people cycling who are currently not cycling rather than relying on new people moving into the borough.

Which brings us nicely on to the Cycling targets of this ten-year plan.

Well we've already managed to increase the share from 6% on page 21 to 7% here on page 36 so some positive progress there already. However to more than double the share from 6 or 7% to 15% in ten years then you'll certainly have to get people cycling who are currently choosing a different mode of travel. Also if you want Hackney to be "a place where it is second nature for everyone, no matter what their age, back ground or ethnicity to cycle" then you're going to have to do more than offer training and turn one-way roads back to two-way.

We've already established that if you're aged under ten then cycling on Hackney's roads is not for you, however with pursuing with bikeability the council hope to see a push from the current rate of 2.3% of children in Hackney cycling to school up to a staggering 5% of children in ten years time. Compare this to the Netherlands where 49% of primary school children go to school by bike and more than 90% of children aged over 12 do so all year round. Lets dip out of the cycling plan for a moment and into the walking plan where we can see how children in Hackney currently get to school.

A staggering 65% of children walk to school, presumably because the council provide safe and segregated pavements rather than expecting them to walk directly in front of lorries and buses.

Outside London Fields Primary School two lollipop ladies assist children crossing the road

The road leading to London Fields Primary school

How many of these 65% would cycle to school if the conditions were right for them to do so?

The school run in the Netherlands, courtesy of Mark Treasure, where children are given a choice of safe walking or cycling

Childhood obesity is a major problem in Hackney with rates significantly higher than national levels. In recent 2012/13 surveys carried out in the borough 13.1% of children aged 4-5 years were found to be overweight while another 13.2% were classed as obese. Among children aged 10-11 years old 16% were overweight and 25.2% classed as obese.

Back to the cycling plan and the council then compare their target of 15% to other cities:

with no comment as to why we are already so far behind Amsterdam's share (from six years ago) or how to get closer to it.

We then move onto cycling plan principles and design principles for cycling infrastructure where the council admit that "Creating a quality environment for cycling is generally recognised as being concerned with providing accessible, direct and convenient, attractive, safe and comfortable routes for experienced and less experienced cyclists alike to provide access to key destinations such as the borough’s town centres and other key destinations for employment, education and leisure. Cycling routes need to legible and intuitive, continuous and uninterrupted by barriers or loss of priority." Key destinations being mainly located on main roads of course.

They then state that "selection of appropriate infrastructure provision for cycle users should follow the hierarchy of provision"

They plan to "reduce the impact of motor traffic" before redesigning junctions, reallocating space or building cycle tracks as that means "it is often possible to meet cyclists’ needs without the need for cycle‐specific infrastructure, potentially freeing up cycling budgets for other smarter choices measures." Whilst this is sometimes the best way to tackle the quieter, residential streets in Hackney and is something Hackney has done to good effect in some areas this approach simply will not work on the main roads that carry buses, lorries and large amounts of motor traffic. Joe Dunckley has written at length about the hierarchy of provision here so little point in me repeating what he says, however it is disappointing to see that the council "will introduce infrastructure provision for cycle users in accordance with the hierarchy of provision set out in LTN 2/08, considering traffic volumes and speed reduction first, followed by junction treatments and reallocation of carriageway spaces, with shared used or on‐footway provision introduced only when all other options have been exhausted."

One area the council do not have control of is Route Provision on the TLRN where they note that "The Mayor of London has recently indicated that he will seek to introduce segregated or semi‐segregated cycle lanes on some of London’s busiest roads over the next ten years as a key cornerstone of his Cycling Vision for London" and that "full details of how this will impact on cycle route provision in Hackney is unclear. The document does state however that cyclists will not be restricted from using any other part of the road network. The Council intend to work with TfL as more details emerge about these proposals and will use the opportunity to advance long‐standing aspirations relating to the removal of gyratory systems at Stoke Newington and providing better cycling conditions in the general Shoreditch area." Pointing out that "cyclists will not be restricted from using any other part of the road network" in the context of building segregated cycle lanes is the kind of language a committed vehicular cyclist would use and this kind of thinking should have no place in designing cycle routes that can be used by everyone.

The report then briefly touches on Reallocation of Road Space and "where provided and developed, bus lanes should always be available to cyclists and wide enough for cyclists to overtake buses safely (around 4.5m wide)."Bikes and buses should never mix and the council need to stop thinking that bus lanes counts as adequate cycling infrastructure. Buses in London are now more dangerous to cyclists than lorries and we need to look at separating the two modes, not integrating them. "Narrower lanes that are appropriate in particularly in built up areas of the borough such as Dalston and Hackney Central, will result in carriageways that are easier for pedestrians to cross and encouraging lower traffic speeds without causing a significant loss of traffic capacity. However this should not result in a loss of clear space for cyclists." Clear space for cyclists presumably means 4.5m wide traffic lanes, such as those seen on the A10 at Dalston, described as ideal by Hackney cycling campaign?

The A10 in Dalston

Smarter Travel and Cycling Promotion is the next section where "the Council will pursue a consistent range of cycling promotion to encourage people who do not presently cycle regularly to undertake more cycling journeys." They plan "to target two socio‐economic groups in particular: Hard Presses Families (who make up 46% of Hackneys residents) and Young Couples and Families" (making up 13% of the boroughs population). Presumably the main reason that the majority of people from these groups do not cycle is the same reason for all other groups of people; the fear of injury whilst cycling on the roads? The council doesn't agree, in the case of Hard pressed families "in many cases, a lack of suitable storage space for bicycles and lower levels of cycle training have been identified as a barrier to cycling lack of storage and lower levels of cycle training." Of course the flats and houses of Hackney are not lucky enough to have enough storage space for a bicycle, unlike the mansions of Central Amsterdam. Meanwhile young couples and families "have low levels of car ownership and are considered to be of prime age for cycling." In the Netherlands there is no "prime age for cycling" as they have engineered solutions that make cycling safe and inviting for people of all ages.

We then move onto the most interesting section of the whole plan, Safer Cycling in Hackney. "Chapter 5 established that fear of injury and the perception of cycling as dangerous activity is a primary reason why many residents do not currently cycle" and "this section will set out some of the over‐arching engineering principles, approaches and cyclist safety measures and initiatives that the Council intends to take to promote a higher level of cyclist safety in our borough." These measures include Reducing speeds, Bikeability where they hope all children will have completed level 2 by the time they are 10-11 years old, with "the ultimate aim of level 2 training is that on completion a cyclist could safely make the journey from home to school." Again Hackney's cycling vision is that no primary school children should cycle to school, unlike the 49% of Dutch primary school children. The council will "aim to make every residential road safe enough to be assessed as being appropriate for children trained up to Bikeability Standard Level 2 to ride on." Note they only pledge to do this for residential roads, meaning that the vast majority of routes for children will not be up to the expected standard for bikeability level 2 from their home all the way to their school gates.

"The Council has been highly successful at implementing schemes on quieter roads however there have been limited improvements for cyclists on our busiest roads. It is inevitable that cyclists will continue to use our busy high streets and strategic roads that carry high volumes of vehicular traffic because often they are the most direct and quickest routes."

Bingo! For the vast majority of cycling trips within the borough we undoubtedly have to use the main routes at some point. Also, as is the case on my trip to work, I have to cycle down a very hostile main road, any alternative route through quieter residential streets would take me twice as long to get to work. This is why Hackney council are wrong to block the superhighway down the A10; people WANT to travel from Stoke Newington to Dalston and onto Shoreditch but the quicker and more direct route is reserved for buses and private motor vehicles. People cycling this route are either expected to either "man up" or use an indirect back route.

"Mapping of cyclist accidents reveals that the majority of serious accidents occur on our busier roads with high traffic flows and often multiple bus routes, and as such these routes need to be specifically considered."

The majority of serious accidents involving people cycling in Hackney happen on the main roads with bus routes, so why block cycling infrastructure on these very roads and push for people to use quieter roads instead?

Absolutely spot on. This shows the limitations of cycle training and reinforces what we were told way back in chapter four. Most people simply will not cycle on the main roads where they have to share with buses and lorries, and those that do try it are likely to give it up when they get to a certain age, or after a certain number of close passes. It is ridiculous to produce a "plan for cycling " if you do not address this very clear number one obstacle to cycling in Hackney.

They continue on that they will "investigate the most suitable options for ensuring cyclist safety whilst not negatively impacting on the safety of pedestrians and bus users." Hackney Council have a road user hierarchy where they place people cycling above that of people using the buses.

Therefore the council must consider the safety of people cycling above delays to buses. Building segregated cycle lanes and reducing the amount of people being killed or seriously injured on the roads is far more important than delays of just a couple of minutes on a five mile bus journey that takes over an hour no matter what certain bus obsessed local councillors think. When the council talk about the safety of bus users I assume they are talking about bus stop bypasses and the safety of people making the transition from the pavement to the bus stop and having to walk over the cycle track. I really do not see this as an issue myself. I've never actually cycled on the segregated section of the cycle superhighway that runs from Stratford Town Centre to the Bow roundabout which has several bus stops bypasses that lie on the route of London's busiest bus route by far. I have however used one of the bus stops as a bus passenger after taking my daughter to the Discover children's story centre and it was absolutely fine for me to use with the pushchair, as it was for the several pensioners I saw using them then as well. Bus stop bypasses are not an issue for pedestrians in London despite what Hackney's MP says with seemingly no evidence whatsoever to back up her claim. Indeed as Mark Treasure points out Hackney has had a bus stop bypass for many years, as have other areas of London. So time to stop this pointless debate about bus stop bypasses, if pedestrians were being injured whilst using them in Stratford or elsewhere we would know about it by now. They work on London's roads and thankfully we'll see many more of them appear over the next few years. So let's stop the silly scaremongering about these bus stop bypasses and focus instead of the real danger and that is the continued slaughter of people cycling in London. On busy road with buses there is nothing else you can do except segregation. Do Hackney Council agree?

So there it is, right at the bottom of page 57; a very luke warm promise that the council are "open and willing to examine" segregation but only after visual landscape, interaction with bus users and competing demands for road space are taken into account.

The plan then moves on to Reducing Cycling Accident rates where they admit they have "been significantly less successful in achieving reductions in numbers of numbers of cyclists killed or seriously injured with an increase of 23% in 2009 from the 1994‐98 average baseline figures" and that "the plan recognises that much more needs to be done to tackle this unacceptably high figure." A map then illustrates the broad locations of Cyclist accidents in Hackney from 2009‐2012 with "729 casualties over this 36 month period of which 616 were slight, 110 resulted in serious injury and 3 were fatal"

The A10

The A102, outside The City Academy school

The A5201

The A1202

The A107

We've established that people mainly cycle on the main roads, the majority of accidents happen on the main roads, so Hackney Council need to make the main roads safe for cycling. This does not mean "being open and willing to examine segregation" but should be absolutely the number one priority of this whole plan; the separation of people cycling from buses and lorries on Hackney's main roads. It increases safety and increases the mode share as well.

The plan highlights the A10 as a particularly dangerous roads with a high number of accidents involving people cycling (there were five cycle fatalities along this road in Hackney between 2006-2010), and says that they "will continue to lobby TfL and work with them to resolve the cyclist accident problems along the A10 corridor in Hackney". Except of course TFL wanted to build a cycle superhighway down the A10 but Hackney council blocked it.

Moving on to the delivery strategy where the council talks about principal routes

then on the very next page is a map of the "Hackney cycling programme" where virtually all of the cycle routes drawn on it are on minor roads. Absolutely nothing planned for all of the main roads listed as the most dangerous routes in the previous chapter. We can even see the indirect back route that "Cycle Superhighway 1" is due to take (in light blue) and the large, wide, direct A10 next to it; the road with the highest number of cycling accidents in Hackney which the council blocked the superhighway from going down.

However there is a clear line that runs along Clerkenwell Road, along Old Street and then along Hackney Road to Victoria Park and onto the Olympic Park. This is the proposed West End – Old Street – iCity/Olympic Park Cycle Corridor; at last a proposal to build a cycle route along one of the busiest main roads in the borough. It is a long term project and involves roads that fall under the responsibility of Camden, Islington, TFL, Hackney and Tower Hamlets so will need a lot of co-operation but one to keep a close eye on.

The plan then continues to discuss cycle parking, filtered permeability, cycle hire extension, cycle to school program, cycle training, targeting potential cyclists and cycle promotion, none of which I think I need to elaborate on as I'm sure I've covered all this already and I've taken up more than enough of your time.

Hackney Council can be applauded for some of the measures they have taken to improve cycling in the borough, even if these were generally traffic reduction measures that benefited people cycling. It can be applauded for producing a cycling plan and vowing to include cycling in any future infrastructure projects. However Hackney really needs to sort out the main roads for people cycling. The vast majority of serious accidents and deaths occur on the main roads that carry high volumes of traffic and numerous bus routes. They need to stop being vague and promising "clear space for cyclists" and make it clear what that clear space is. It cannot be 4.5m wide roads, or shared bus lanes, or traffic speed reduction. They need to stop listening to the selfish views of members of the local cycling campaign who declare segregation as "poor quality cycle specific provison" and arrogantly claim it has "no place in Hackney" even though it seems to have royal approval. If you want people from all ages and backgrounds cycling safely then you simply have to separate them from buses and lorries and give people in Hackney a choice. Until the council do this the slaughter of cyclists on the main roads of Hackney will continue.

2 comments:

Excellent write up! Hackney will struggle to increase cycling levels to anything half-decent – and by half-decent I mean significantly into double digits. It's current modal share isn't far ahead of many other boroughs, such as Lambeth, on 4%.

A 6% modal share really isn't such a statistical outlier, it's hardly some amazing achievement which sticks out like a sore thumb. It's slightly ahead of the next highest, so what?!

Talking of modal share, in this 2010 video, Oliver Schick says that the modal share in Hackney is 8%: http://vimeo.com/9950110

Yet the 2014 cycling plan from Hackney Council states the modal share is either 6% or 7%, can't make up its mind (I've also been told 5.9% by a trustworthy source) – I wonder what the true figure is?

So what's happened? Either Oliver Schick was intentionally inflating the figure, or he was mistaken (with big on-screen graphics emphasising this wrong number), or Hackney's modal share has fallen slightly in the last four years.

Either way, we're looking at a difference of one or two percentage points, which kind of proves that large numbers aren't cycling in Hackney, despite how it may look to the cycle-starved.

The plan stinks of meddling by Stops and Schick. They've conveniently redefined the LCC's "clear space for cycling" (which was always ripe for such abuse) into "clear space for CYCLISTS" which apparently means wider lanes on busy roads, shared with motor vehicles.

And as you've said, why would they care about the "right to the road"? That's pure vehicular-cycling-evangelist talk, straight from the mouth of Schick, via his pal Stops, onto the council's PDF.

Having thought about it, I think LCC's local branch Hackney Cyclists are selfish. Everything they ask for reeks of what would make journeys faster for their little clique of confident, assertive cyclists.

Gyratory removal, for example. As you've pointed out, roads full of heavy motor traffic are awful to cycle on, the vast majority of people just won't do it, whether the flow is one-way or two, it doesn't matter.

But if it shaves a couple of minutes off Oliver Schick's journey, then Hackney Cyclists are all for it, and sod the vast majority of people who just aren't willing to mix with buses and lorries.

Well, screw them. They're not a campaign for cycling for everyone, they're a campaign to improve conditions purely for themselves and nobody else.